The Correct Answer Trap: Pedagogically-Grounded Detection and Feedback for Hidden Misconceptions

Intelligent tutoring systems increasingly provide automated feedback on student work, but robust feedback requires assessing reasoning, not only final answers. We study a failure mode we call the correct answer trap (CAT): models under-detect misconceptions when students reach a correct answer via flawed reasoning. Analysing real student responses from the Eedi mathematics platform, we show that 71% of these failures concentrate in just two question types, both sharing a common structure where flawed reasoning happens to produce the correct numerical answer. Comparing a fine-tuned T5 with a frontier large language model, we find that improved capabilities reduce but do not eliminate the problem (84% vs 57% detection accuracy). Even the best-performing model generates roughly four false alarms for every genuine detection, making stand-alone screening impractical at realistic class sizes. Our findings demonstrate that high overall accuracy can mask critical failures in reasoning assessment, and that careful analysis of student reasoning still benefits from human judgment.

Novice math teachers often encounter students' mistakes that are difficult to diagnose and remediate. Misconceptions are especially challenging because teachers must explain what went wrong and how to solve them. Although many existing large language model (LLM) platforms can assist in generating instructional feedback, these LLMs loosely connect pedagogical knowledge and student mistakes, which might make the guidance less actionable for teachers. To address this gap, we propose MisEdu-RAG, a dual-hypergraph-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework that organizes pedagogical knowledge as a concept hypergraph and real student mistake cases as an instance hypergraph. Given a query, MisEdu-RAG performs a two-stage retrieval to gather connected evidence from both layers and generates a response grounded in the retrieved cases and pedagogical principles. We evaluate on \textit{MisstepMath}, a dataset of math mistakes paired with teacher solutions, as a benchmark for misconception-aware retrieval and response generation across topics and error types. Evaluation results on \textit{MisstepMath} show that, compared with baseline models, MisEdu-RAG improves token-F1 by 10.95% and yields up to 15.3% higher five-dimension response quality, with the largest gains on \textit{Diversity} and \textit{Empowerment}. To verify its applicability in practical use, we further conduct a pilot study through a questionnaire survey of 221 teachers and interviews with 6 novices. The findings suggest that MisEdu-RAG provides diagnosis results and concrete teaching moves for high-demand misconception scenarios. Overall, MisEdu-RAG demonstrates strong potential for scalable teacher training and AI-assisted instruction for misconception handling. Our code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/GEMLab-HKU/MisEdu-RAG.

Modeling student misconceptions in a realistic manner is critical for AI in education. In this work, we examine how large language models (LLMs) reason about misconceptions when generating distractor answers for multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a task that requires producing answers that are incorrect, yet plausible. We introduce a taxonomy over reasoning strategies for distractor generation that is grounded in learning-science literature and empirical observation, which we apply to LLM-generated reasoning traces across math and science MCQs. On the math dataset, we find that models follow a misconception-based process with potentially high diagnostic value: they recover the correct solution, articulate student errors, simulate them, and select plausible candidates. On the science dataset, on the other hand, they tend to follow a less robust approach based on semantic similarity to the correct answer. We find the most frequent failure modes to be that the model is unable to generate a correct solution or that it discards plausible distractor candidates when performing selection. Providing the correct solution in the prompt yields a relative improvement of 6.4% in alignment with human-authored distractors, highlighting the critical role of anchoring distractor generation to the correct solution. Together, our findings offer an interpretable view of how LLMs model incorrect student reasoning.